GAT_00:There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.

So one century out of how many years?

Warming can be happening, the only issue I have is why does it mean we have to be causing it or that we can do anything to correct it?

You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

Dusk-You-n-Me:chuckufarlie: There is no reason to believe that the change in temperature is going to increase.

Sure there is. CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere a long, long time. That's the kicker here.

That 0.8 degree C increase is a response from what we were doing 50 to 100 years ago. What we see in the first half of this century will be a response to what we've done the last 50 years. What we do in the first half of this century will determine what we see in the latter half of this century. Even if we were to stop all emissions today, the temperature will still increase for the next few decades, because of the lagging effect of emissions.

We're already set to blow past the 2 degree C marker. Scientists now consider that too high to be safe and too low to be possible.

The real threat is when the earth takes over for us. When the Siberian permafrost melts it will release methane, warming the planet, further melting the permafrost, releasing more methane, and so on. When white sea ice (which reflects energy) melts and turns into blue water (which absorbs energy), this will also heat up the planet, further melting ice, further warming the planet, and so on.

If these positive feedback loops are set in motion emissions won't matter anymore. There will be nothing we can do to stop the warming. The planet will have taken over for us, and it will be out of our hands completely

That is all a bunch of crap from the people who want us to believe this con is real. There is no evidence that we are about to blow past anything. That is just pure nonsense that people who want to believe accept without looking at the evidence.

Oh wait, there is no evidence, is there?!

The Vostok Ice Core samples tell real scientists that an increase in CO2 has always followed an increase in temperature. Can you prove that this has changed? Can you show me scientific data that shows that this current increase in temperature started with an increase in CO2? NOPE. You cannot do so and neither can anybody else.

There is no funding for "Global warming."There is no funding for "Denying global warming."

There IS funding for "What were the temperatures like XXXX years ago?"All you need to do to get that funding is identify a method that will record temperature (tree-rings, ice cores, other proxies, etc). Then you can publish your findings (go through peer review at this point. Then you have to make the data you collect (the raw data) available to the public so that if someone disagrees with you they can go in and see if they can find a fault in your findings.

This is what happened with the Koch funded study. "Climategate" happened climate change deniers jumped on it, the Koch brothers gave funding to one of the scientists that has openly been one of the strongest climate deniers, he went through all of the "Climategate" data and *shocked* determined that yes indeed the world is warmer now. It is not like the climate change scientists are shrouded in mystery. Everything is available to the public (That is mandatory if you are being funded through the government, the data is not yours it is the governments).

You take any study that any scientist has dreamed up and add the phrase 'and the effects on it by global warming" and you can get your grant money.

The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850.

Pitabred:omeganuepsilon: Dusk-You-n-Me: omeganuepsilon: To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.

Now this is a fair observation, with just those two slides presented. It's not pointless in response to the post I was replying too. So there's that.

That was all I meant, why I phrased it that way. That was all.

I'm a bit of a skeptic, Not at the warming so much, but that it's not natural. Not saying either way, but there is a possibility that it's coincidental with a warming after an ice age. My only other post in this thread was asking about the margin of error of temp proxies in things like ice cores.

I'm not waving any armchair doctorates or anything. With the argument's highly publicized and politicized "findings", I'm simply not a Believer either way as are most of the Politard Fark Brigade.

Really I just like to poke at some of the things put forth as proof/arguments, in any given topic on fark. Glad you saw it for what it was.

Ambitwistor: A real skeptic would examine the evidence and the body of existing knowledge.

No. A real skeptic may state doubts, but is not committed to getting a degree in the sciences needed to be convinced. Honestly, that's what it would take. If you're an accountant, garbage man, medical doctor, whatever, you're allowed to be a skeptic that does not have the time nor the means to really study the details.

For example, what are your professional credentials that we should take your analysis of all of the facts as the only possible outcome? Pretend for a second that claims of such thing carry any weight on the internet, and that people aren't argumentative butthooks who rely heavily on faith(Welcome to Fark!).....

So, what you're saying is you don't put much weight in expert opinion, but you can't be bothered to learn enough about it yourself to tell us why?

You're allowed to be a skeptic, but skepticism follows facts. It doesn't just say "that's all too complicated for me, so I'm g ...

Put on your reading glasses next time.

There is no law that states that skeptical people have to follow to a conclusion every little curiosity they may have.

It runs counter to civilization itself, which has only come to to where it stands today because people specialize in just a few skills, and then barter/buy whatever else they need to live and enjoy their off time.

Keizer_Ghidorah:You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

chuckufarlie:The Vostok Ice Core samples tell real scientists that an increase in CO2 has always followed an increase in temperature. Can you prove that this has changed? Can you show me scientific data that shows that this current increase in temperature started with an increase in CO2?

Proposed and shot down earlier in the thread. Scroll back if you'd like.

There is no funding for "Global warming."There is no funding for "Denying global warming."

There IS funding for "What were the temperatures like XXXX years ago?"All you need to do to get that funding is identify a method that will record temperature (tree-rings, ice cores, other proxies, etc). Then you can publish your findings (go through peer review at this point. Then you have to make the data you collect (the raw data) available to the public so that if someone disagrees with you they can go in and see if they can find a fault in your findings.

This is what happened with the Koch funded study. "Climategate" happened climate change deniers jumped on it, the Koch brothers gave funding to one of the scientists that has openly been one of the strongest climate deniers, he went through all of the "Climategate" data and *shocked* determined that yes indeed the world is warmer now. It is not like the climate change scientists are shrouded in mystery. Everything is available to the public (That is mandatory if you are being funded through the government, the data is not yours it is the governments).

You take any study that any scientist has dreamed up and add the phrase 'and the effects on it by global warming" and you can get your grant money.

The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850.

I wish it worked that way it would make life so much easier.

It does work that way. There are thousands of studies that have been funded because global warming was suggested as a cause/problem.

chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

chuckufarlie:Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

Well, here's an idea: come up with SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS! You don't abandon the entire concept because one solution is obviously stupid.

If your point is to question someone else's citation, get proven wrong, then move on to the next thing you want to question (ice cores now, apparently), then yes, the point of you being in this thread is clear.

I'm the one who brought it up ...And where was I proven wrong??..Not once did I say it was a fact...Just pointed out that E=mc2 was in question as little as a year ago...So assuming something as fact because the majority thinks it is, is still not proof...

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Keizer_Ghidorah:chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

Well, here's an idea: come up with SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS! You don't abandon the entire concept because one solution is obviously stupid.

Any solution to a worldwide problem has to be addressed at a worldwide level. If one or two countries tries to do something, it would be pointless. You might as well try draining the ocean with a one gallon bucket.

namatad:rob.d: But that all said we need to move to a post carbon economy even if the world starts to cool down again because the stuff is getting scarce and if we don't start using less of it now, and plan to be mostly off of it in 100 years then we'll run out and our civilization will crash.

Um where is fossil fuel getting scarce?LOLUS has 200+ years of NG.US is massively increasing its crude oil production and has started exporting gasoline.US has 100-200+ years of coal.so scarce?

YES, I wish the fark we were building massive numbers of fission power plants.But it is cheaper to drill drill drill.Until that changes, we will continue to burn burn burn.

200 years, at current rates is not a long time. If we're smart we can extend that out to 500 years.

But if we don't change we'll increase our rate of burn, that 200 then becomes 110, that is not a heck of a long time.

steamingpile:GAT_00: There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.

So one century out of how many years?

Warming can be happening, the only issue I have is why does it mean we have to be causing it or that we can do anything to correct it?

Humans are the most self centered, arrogant creature in the galaxy.

The fact that it is happening doesn't mean that we are causing it. The evidence that we are causing it (which you seem to be blissfully unaware of) is interpreted to mean that we are causing it.

chuckufarlie:DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

chuckufarlie:Keizer_Ghidorah: chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

Well, here's an idea: come up with SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS! You don't abandon the entire concept because one solution is obviously stupid.

Any solution to a worldwide problem has to be addressed at a worldwide level. If one or two countries tries to do something, it would be pointless. You might as well try draining the ocean with a one gallon bucket.

Still better than nothing. And after the first couple of countries does it and show that it works, more might follow. Hell, America likes to crow about how awesome and advanced we are and how the world should be like us, let's lead by example and implement some CO2-reducing strategies.

Oh, wait, they would cost money to do, and no one wants to spend money to keep our home clean.

namatad:turnerdude69: Let's just take ice cores for example....You man made global warming advocates swear by them as if they were the bible...Do you even know how they estimate years in the core layers?? They assume that the melting snow between the layers of unmelted snow gives them the "rings" to count the years and that supposedly only happens in the summer....What if it stayed real cold for a long time and there is little precipitation?? How would you know? Would you just count it as one year? Or vise versa...

well because adults read books or articles about the ice cores1) two mile time machine is an AWESOME BOOK ... serously2) nothing to do with melting ....

the layers are snow fall and salt and dust and and and and ....In theory there could be multiple numbers of years where it never stopped snowing or never snowed ... but that does not appear to be the case.

I've read plenty...Enough to know counting the layer "rings" is how they measure the years...Which could be affected by several things other than the seasons...

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

I guess that your response means that you agree with the rest of my statements. And that article is rather weak.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

Btw, the ice core lags are also based on models, but you know that, right? And you would never champion uses of models on data on one hand while dismissing the same data and modeling on the other, yes?

Keizer_Ghidorah:chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

Well, here's an idea: come up with SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS! You don't abandon the entire concept because one solution is obviously stupid.

Any solution to a worldwide problem has to be addressed at a worldwide level. If one or two countries tries to do something, it would be pointless. You might as well try draining the ocean with a one gallon bucket.

Still better than nothing. And after the first couple of countries does it and show that it works, more might follow. Hell, America likes to crow about how awesome and advanced we are and how the world should be like us, let's lead by example and implement some CO2-reducing strategies.

Oh, wait, they would cost money to do, and no one wants to spend money to keep our home clean.

try to pay attention, it will not work if a couple of countries do it.

You want to reduce CO2 - have everybody park their cars and walk, shut down the coal burning power plants and the factories that are spitting out CO2. That ought to do it. Well, to be more precise, it will make a change in about 100 years, according to a world renowned scientist AND you have to do that across the globe.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

Btw, the ice core lags are also based on models, but you know that, right? And you would never champion uses of models on data on one hand while dismissing the same data and modeling on the other, yes?

Here's another study on modeling the CO2 lag.

why model something that is illustrated clearly in the ice core samples? Sounds like somebody is trying to blow smoke.

I'm going to come out and say it. I like global warming. I want global warming to come and stay. I hate the cold and everything about it. I drive 33,500 miles per year for work and I hope that I am helping it be even 1 degree warming in the Mid-West.

Showing chuckufarlie/nicksteel/etc data is about as productive as shouting at that old handicapped fellow down by the interstate on-ramp waving the Jesus-saves-the-end-is-near-repent!! sign at passing traffic.

chuckufarlie:There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel):The truth will set you free. This entire scam [climate change] is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel):The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel):They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel):Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement [climate change] and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government.

chuckufarlie:It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel):Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents.

chuckufarlie:PEOPLE who was to reduce pollution do not want to destroy the economy. However, the IPCC certainly wants to destroy the US economy.

. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

chuckufarlie:Keizer_Ghidorah: chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

Well, here's an idea: come up with SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS! You don't abandon the entire concept because one solution is obviously stupid.

Any solution to a worldwide problem has to be addressed at a worldwide level. If one or two countries tries to do something, it would be pointless. You might as well try draining the ocean with a one gallon bucket.

Still better than nothing. And after the first couple of countries does it and show that it works, more might follow. Hell, America likes to crow about how awesome and advanced we are and how the world should be like us, let's lead by example and implement some CO2-reducing strategies.

Oh, wait, they would cost money to do, and no one wants to spend money to keep our home clean.

try to pay attention, it will not work if a couple of countries do it.

You want to reduce CO2 - have everybody park their cars and walk, shut down the coal burning power plants and the factories that are spitting out CO2. That ought to do it. Well, to be more precise, it will make a change in about 100 years, according to a world renowned scientist AND you have to do that across the globe.

You could pay attention too, I did suggest removing the CO2 already in the atmosphere with filters/scrubbers/more trees along with the other things.

Oh, so because it won't be instantaneous we shouldn't try doing it at all?

chuckufarlie:DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

I argue from evidence and you call it a game? Ha.

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

Are you playing macho tag or something? I'm not denying anything. Show me some evidence, on anything you are concerned about and state clearly why these temperature sensors corrupt models. Why they cannot be adjusted for. Until then your concerns are unfounded.

You have yet to show how these anamolous stations poison the analysis.

All evidence points to why you think some of these concerns are vitally important ...because you simply have no clue as to how modeling works.

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

Irrelevant concern. See above. I already replied why proxy data is used for trajectories and can help set a wide range of response, that's called modeling.

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

I guess that your response means that you agree with the rest of my statements. And that article is rather weak.

A Nature article is weak that you read and debunked in five minutes? How so?

Ok, you're already coming off as ignorant, but there's the cherry on top.

Keizer_Ghidorah:chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: chuckufarlie: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know, natural or man-made, maybe we could come up with ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere and ways to remove the excess already there, instead of screaming and flinging blame everywhere.

You know, just in case. Wouldn't want our only home in the universe to go to shiat.

The IPCC has a solution. They want to close down all of the industry in the Western World and distribute it to the developing countries. And they have identified India and China are developing countries. Does that sound like good planning to you?

Well, here's an idea: come up with SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS! You don't abandon the entire concept because one solution is obviously stupid.

Any solution to a worldwide problem has to be addressed at a worldwide level. If one or two countries tries to do something, it would be pointless. You might as well try draining the ocean with a one gallon bucket.

Still better than nothing. And after the first couple of countries does it and show that it works, more might follow. Hell, America likes to crow about how awesome and advanced we are and how the world should be like us, let's lead by example and implement some CO2-reducing strategies.

Oh, wait, they would cost money to do, and no one wants to spend money to keep our home clean.

try to pay attention, it will not work if a couple of countries do it.

You want to reduce CO2 - have everybody park their cars and walk, shut down the coal burning power plants and the factories that are spitting out CO2. That ought to do it. Well, to be more precise, it will make a change in about 100 years, according to a world renowned scientist AND you have to do that across the globe.

You could pay attention too, I did suggest removing the CO2 already in the atmosphere with filters/s ...

How are you going to do that? Good luck because nobody else has come up with a way but don't let that stop you.

hypnoticus ceratophrys:Showing chuckufarlie/nicksteel/etc data is about as productive as shouting at that old handicapped fellow down by the interstate on-ramp waving the Jesus-saves-the-end-is-near-repent!! sign at passing traffic.

chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): The truth will set you free. This entire scam [climate change] is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement [climate change] and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government.

chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents.

chuckufarlie: PEOPLE who was to reduce pollution do not want to destroy the economy. However, the IPCC certainly wants to destroy the US economy.

chuckufarlie:DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

Btw, the ice core lags are also based on models, but you know that, right? And you would never champion uses of models on data on one hand while dismissing the same data and modeling on the other, yes?

Here's another study on modeling the CO2 lag.

why model something that is illustrated clearly in the ice core samples? Sounds like somebody is trying to blow smoke.

Showing chuckufarlie/nicksteel/etc data is about as productive as shouting at that old handicapped fellow down by the interstate on-ramp waving the Jesus-saves-the-end-is-near-repent!! sign at passing traffic.

chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): The truth will set you free. This entire scam [climate change] is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement [climate change] and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government.

chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

chuckufarlie(nicksteel): Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents.

chuckufarlie: PEOPLE who was to reduce pollution do not want to destroy the economy. However, the IPCC certainly wants to destroy the US economy.

You have to wonder why the boy is fighting so hard. You really have to wonder what exactly he's fighting *for.*